Opinion
The question the MoJ ducked, and the debate that has to answer it
Paris Shears' UK Parliament petition has crossed 100,000 signatures. A parliamentary debate is now triggered. What sits beneath the case the government did not address.
What happened in Paris's case
Paris Shears' ex-partner, Robert Hastings, was charged with intentional strangulation, assault by beating, and controlling and coercive behaviour. On 16 July 2025 he pleaded not guilty. On 9 March 2026, day one of the trial - 236 days later - he changed his plea on the strangulation and assault charges. The controlling and coercive behaviour count was left on file. He received 18 months custodial, suspended for 18 months, at Southampton Crown Court on 14 April 2026.
Two things happened in that sentencing window that the petition asks Parliament to look at. First, the sliding scale of guilty-plea reductions, which on the day of trial typically delivers a ten per cent cut. Second, and this is the part not yet on the public record, the disposal of the controlling and coercive behaviour count.
These are different mechanisms. The petition is about the second.
What the MoJ said, and what it didn't
The Ministry of Justice published its response to the petition on 11 May 2026. The response defends the sliding scale. It explains how guilty-plea reductions taper from a third at the first stage to a tenth on the first day of trial. It points at adjacent VAWG activity: the £13.1m National Centre for VAWG and Public Protection announced in February 2025, automatic MAPPA inclusion for CCB sentences of twelve months or more, and a refresh of the controlling and coercive behaviour statutory guidance by the end of 2026.
It does not address charge bargaining. The case the petition was raised in did not turn on plea discount. It turned on the controlling and coercive behaviour count being left on file in exchange for guilty pleas on the strangulation and assault charges. The MoJ response defends the architecture the petition is not challenging, and goes nowhere near the architecture it is.
A week after that, in a BBC interview, the MoJ added that it is "carefully reviewing" Sir Brian Leveson's independent review of criminal courts, which is designed to encourage defendants to plead guilty earlier. The Leveson review is sensible in its own terms. But sitting alongside Paris's petition it makes the underlying issue starker: the system is being tuned to incentivise earlier guilty pleas in general, while a specific category of offence, controlling and coercive behaviour, is being negotiated off the indictment without the survivor's knowledge.
What Parliament now has to do
When Paris's petition is debated, three questions should land on the Despatch Box.
First: What CPS guidance exists for charge bargains in controlling and coercive behaviour cases, and is it disclosable to the survivor before the deal is struck? The decision to leave a count on file is made in the prosecutor's chambers, often on the day of trial, often without the survivor present. If the conduct alleged in that count constitutes a course of conduct under section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015, the survivor is the only person in the room who can tell the prosecutor what the pattern looked like.
Second: How will Section 6 of the Sentencing Act 2026 be applied to charges left on file? Section 6, in force this year, permits a court to formally state that an offence involved domestic abuse even where the conviction is on a general offence rather than a domestic-abuse-specific one. The MoJ response did not mention it. In Paris's case, the strangulation count was a general offence; the controlling and coercive behaviour count, which would have made the domestic-abuse character explicit, was the one bargained off. Section 6 is the lever the government has already provided.
Third: What scrutiny mechanism exists when a CCB count is bargained off in exchange for a guilty plea on another count? At present, none does. The deal is recorded in the case file. The survivor learns of it on the day, and in some cases after the day. The pattern of conduct that took months to assemble disappears from the legal record.
Paris's case is one of three currently visible at three stages of the same system. Natalie Queiroz, MBE, whose ex-partner stabbed her twenty-four times while she was eight months pregnant, learned earlier this year that he would be transferred to open prison four years earlier than she had been told, after the MoJ quietly relaxed the open-prison eligibility rule in March 2024. The charging stage is where Paris's case was decided. The post-conviction stage is where Natalie's continues to be decided. The same architecture - rule, decision, handover, each defensible in isolation, cumulative effect borne by the survivor - operates at every stage of the system.
Iris builds the pattern-detection technology that makes this architecture legible. The petition asks Parliament to make it legible too.
The petition stays open until 21 October 2026. The debate, when it is scheduled, is the first hour in which Westminster has to answer the question the MoJ ducked the first time.
Sources: UK Parliament petition 764553 (Paris Shears' petition), crossing 100,000 signatures 18 May 2026; Ministry of Justice published response, 11 May 2026; Southampton Crown Court sentencing, 14 April 2026; Section 6 of the Sentencing Act 2026; section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015; Sir Brian Leveson independent review of criminal courts; Natalie Queiroz MBE open-prison eligibility update, 2026.
← Back to Iris · caroline@trustiris.com
Confidential. (c) 2026 Iris Anticipa Ltd. All rights reserved.